Ultimately, I dismiss the phenomenon outright because in the end: it is only hearsay. Furthermore, there were all the obvious frauds, like the “contactees” in the past who claimed to have went to Venus or Mars. For me, this is the point where “Ufology” jumps the shark with tales of Men-in-Black, Reptilians, Greys, and Nordic Aliens. And for that, I blame the present climate of ridicule towards UAPs in general. So, I have a strong bias against abduction stories. Never mind that I don’t like the implications of these stories to begin with. However, as John Mack – the late Harvard psychiatrist found, some of these people have undoubtedly experienced something. Something they attributed to UFOs.

So anyway, here are some questions I would like to throw out there:

1) Where do you guys stand on Alien Abductions? Where do you draw the line?

2) How do you rationalize and/or dismiss the stories of the more credible abductees?

3) If we were to assume the Abductees are accurate and truthful, what are the implications of that in your eyes?

I've read Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, Fowler, Fuller, Strieber as well as a handful lesser known authors of studies and papers as research material for my masters thesis. I feel as though I know the subject fairly well, if only as those authors have presented it.

It's interesting. The thing that has always impressed me is that the basic narrative and, often times, very obscure details seem to be replicated time and time again among ostensible abductees, and I simply can't explain how that happens. I mean, I have serious reservations about the use of hypnosis as a tool for retrieving abduction memories. Obviously, one might logically reach the conclusion that memories retrieved through hypnosis are a result of the subject being asked leading questions by these researchers. A thorough reading of the literature, frustratingly, does not bear that assumption out however, especially in cases where the abduction experience is consciously remembered and hypnosis is not used. So, unless these authors are lying about the questions asked and their methodologies, and I don't believe they are, there seems to be some inexplicable common experience between abductees.

Here's a mind-blowing piece of information I discovered over the course of my research, and in discussions with abduction authors Jacobs and Hopkins: There appears to be some kind of insider knowledge, not published, and only talked about in hushed tones among other abduction researchers. This insider knowledge is supposedly used as a kind of litmus test for abductees. Apparently there are specific details about the experience only an abductee would see, such as a door shaped like a shamrock, or some such. It sounds incredible, but that is what they claim. No, I didn't find out what that specific detail is, and they would only go so far as to admit that there is a litmus test along those lines.

What does this all mean, if true? Well, I'm not the first person to point out the often "high-strangness" aspect of even simple CE1s and CE2s. Something strange is going on and physical laws are apparently being broken in a number of sightings. Who's to say how far that rabbit hole goes, but I think those that study ostensible abductions might, just might, be a little further along down that hole than the rest of us. Who knows, ultimately? I'm open to any possibility.

I would be very wary of accepting that a specific common experience can be said to be proof (enough to serve as a litmus test) of any one specific thing, especially when a number of other hypotheses could account for the experience. Studies of the phenomenon of sleep paralysis have shown that people experiencing it in one culture will consistently report similar physical descriptions of the experience that conflict significantly with those in another culture (a demon in 19th century English patients; a pale female banshee or specter in modern day Japanese; aliens with UFO technology in modern day Americans). The mind is heavily influenced by symbols, and these symbols take different forms based on a cultural context, so I would be just as inclined to believe that this key detail 'litmus test' is another symbol of the subconscious that only exists within a subculture and not in the greater culture of so-called alien abductees.

That said, I really like what dute said above:

In terms of drawing the line, I personally think that abduction reports, like any other subject, can be studied using the scientific method. It is fundamentally illogical to presuppose that the reports cannot be studied productively.

So I'm not wholeheartedly dismissing these researchers, just correcting this concept of a shared specific detail being suitable proof of any one thing.

Oh, I fully agree. I just would like to know what this supposed litmus test information is. How strange would it be if these people experiencing sleep paralysis or hypnagogic/hypnopompic imagery (if not alien abduction) all experienced, for example, a floating purple mushroom with golden spots? Not proof of anything, per se, but certainly strange and inexplicable given that they all claim a similar experience with many other, less specific, details intact and in common.
[Edit: a word]

I've read Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, Fowler, Fuller, Strieber as well as a handful lesser known authors of studies and papers as research material for my masters thesis.

Where would you recommend an interested researcher start with the abduction literature? And I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want to read your master's thesis!

So, unless these authors are lying about the questions asked and their methodologies, and I don't believe they are, there seems to be some inexplicable common experience between abductees.

This is a very interesting point. I know that David Jacobs claims to ask "misleading" questions to verify the authenticity of a report. "Were they on the other side of the room?" "No, their head was right against mine" sort of thing.

Here's a mind-blowing piece of information I discovered over the course of my research, and in discussions with abduction authors Jacobs and Hopkins: There appears to be some kind of insider knowledge, not published, and only talked about in hushed tones among other abduction researchers.

Fascinating. I had never heard of this. Any starting references you could point me to?

Where would you recommend an interested researcher start with the abduction literature?

I'd suggest starting with the first major abduction narrative that gained widespread attention Interrupted Journey by John G. Fuller. It might be interesting then to "jump to the end," as it were, and give Mack's excellent Abduction a look. I've found all the authors mentioned to be really accessible, at any rate.

Any starting references you could point me to?

I wish there were. The first I had heard of it was at one of these MUFON conventions when I was heavy into that. It was in casual conversation with Jacobs and Hopkins and I could tell they didn't want to reveal too much at that time. I'm hoping Jacobs at least has the guts to release that info to someone prior to his passing, and I'm guessing he already has someone tapped to take over, were he to retire. I don't buy his doom and gloom take on the issue, and am still skeptical of his ultimate conclusions about what these phenomena represent, but what he has found is certainly, as you say, fascinating.

I'm reading this some months later, but I do know about the "mind-blowing" insider knowledge you and timmy242 were intrigued by. I'm actually surprised neither of you were aware of the details of this, I've come across mention of it on at least a few occasions in the the past, I didn't think the existence of it was much of a secret. But then again, abduction research is something of a specialty interest for me within the field.

To get to the point, the issue at hand is the existence of a distinct alien alphabet seen & reported by abductees. It has been remembered & described / drawn by multiple abductees, and the reports match each other precisely. The primary source of this information AFAIK was Budd Hopkins, he had a portfolio of a significant number of such alphabet drawings he kept hidden in his studio, and intentionally never published or publicized the exact nature of it. Thus theoretically giving him a good 'litmus test' for the veracity of the experience. I'm not sure if any other investigator ever confirmed his findings, or whether all this came 100% from Budd's research. Either way, while it's an intriguing additional piece of supportive evidence, I'm sure that it's certainly not beyond skeptical criticism.

I believe I've heard Budd or one his assistants mention this at least once in podcast interviews I've listened to in the past. Some quick goggling found a thread on it in the UFO Updates List from 1996/1997, starting here with a very detailed post here by Greg Sandow. There a number of replies to this post if you search through the "monthly index" into January 1997, but there's no easy way to follow the thread. Another related UFO Updates thread from 2007

There is also some (skeptical) commentary on this from 2011 on the Magonia Blog with reference to the Carol Rainey / Budd Hopkins conflict that was raging at the time. Link. Googling around will find more.

As far as what I'd "recommend an interested researcher start with in the abduction literature", I'm just now finishing C.D.B. Bryan's "Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind - Alien Abduction UFOs, and The Conference at M.I.T.". This 1995 book covers in detail the journalist author's experiences & thoughts as an open-minded outsider who attended the 5-day Abduction Study Conference held in 1992 at M.I.T. in Boston. While it is getting old, the reality is that very little has changed since then in the field, so everything covered is still essentially valid. He wastes some time covering the basic UFO History 101 material, and the second half is mostly a transcript of a series of hypnosis sessions of a couple of "experiencers" being treated by Budd Hopkins, which I found fascinating but some reviewers have complained about. The important thing is that the author remains quite non-judgemental and retains a very balanced, sensible POV throughout the book while presenting a number of different angles on the topic from various researchers and abductees. Veterans won't learn much they haven't heard before, but it's a good introduction & summary of the state of the field in the 90's. The book is still sold at Amazon. The 1 review there goes into more detail.

Where would you recommend an interested researcher start with the abduction literature?

The Allagash Abductions by Ray Fowler is a good book focusing on a single case, and if I recall correctly, he drops hints as to the nature of what you term the 'insider knowledge' to explain how the four abductees' stories line up to present a believable scenario. I wouldn't start with Hopkins, as his books are mostly hypnosis transcription and tend to be a bit dry, but they are worth reading eventually.

1) Where do you guys stand on Alien Abductions? Where do you draw the line?

I don't have the exact reference on me, but I know that in one of his discussions of the social forces involved with UFO studies Carl Sagan made a joke about how UFO researchers are divided into two camps: those who think that abductions are taboo and those who think the abductions are the only relevant reports. I have personally felt this sort of cultural divide between the two subjects. I have books by John Mack, Bud Hopkins and John Fuller, but haven't read read them. Somehow I feel that looking into abductions would de-legitimize me as someone who is interested in "serious" subjects like Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.

In terms of drawing the line, I personally think that abduction reports, like any other subject, can be studied using the scientific method. It is fundamentally illogical to presuppose that the reports cannot be studied productively.

Now my somewhat vague understanding of the research that has actually been done on abduction reports indicates that the methods of previous researchers have been scientifical at best. In my experience hunting down peer-reviewed UFO material, I have found that by far the largest UFO-related subject for mainstream scientists is abduction reports and the way delusional and magical thinking can combine with regression hypnosis to allow for "implanted" memories to emerge [perhaps Fermi's Paradox has more English language peer-reviewed work published, but after that it isn't even close]. This is likely due to John Mack: he had enough clout that other psychiatrists felt they had to follow up and pick apart his work.

So yes, I absolutely am skeptical about David Jacobs hypnotizing people himself and then finding patterns in the reports. Jacobs is an amateur hypnotist, and he admits it. Though at the same time, if I wanted to actually understand his arguments it seems I'd have to evaluate the actual tapes of the sessions to see how his methodology plays out.

Ideally there would be physical evidence or corroborating details. I haven't listened to this for awhile, but McGill optics researcher and UFOlogist Don Donderi has a series of lectures on iTunesU about the evidence in detail for abductions. I recall these being extremely lucid and informative. And of course, it's likely that any actual corroborating evidence would come from patterns, which one can only detect if one actually looks at the reports. Catch-22, anyone? For example, I know David Jacobs argues that the Barney and Betty Hill case may actually be real because Barney originally reported having "semen extracted", but that was not included in the original accounts because Barney found it extremely embarrassing. Jacobs argues that later "abductees" reported similar semen extraction behavior. Though again, we would have to establish these facts in order to even begin discussing a pattern or connection between them.

2) How do you rationalize and/or dismiss the stories of the more credible abductees?

I would have no trouble adjusting my belief system to include abduction reports, taken at face value, as being "real". I would just have to see good evidence for that. In broad terms, I am sympathetic to the notion that most "abduction reports", if they did actually represent "real" anomalous events, would be due to human actions and not "ET"s. That is, many abduction reports sound like something the CIA would be involved in. MK-ULTRA anyone?

3) If we were to assume the Abductees are accurate and truthful, what are the implications of that in your eyes?

Well the person whose work I know the best is David Jacobs. He thinks it's quite clear that there's some sort of training program underway to prepare people for some sort of integration event.

But on this point and in general, I agree with John Alexander: not only is the universe far stranger than we ever imagined. It's stranger than we can imagine.

To be clear, I was not saying I agree with David Jacobs' conclusion. I'm just offering what he has said in the past since that's what I know. And if I were to accept that Jacobs' "integration" event is approaching, I would temper that expectation with an Oryx-style sense of caution. Because in such a world where people are actually abducted and put on white tables in ovular rooms and "Grey" humanoids with huge eyes access their minds via a nerve in the eye in order to show them images of humans and "others" playing together before carting out human-looking babies and forcing the abductees, even men, to suckle them...I'd be inclined to agree with Charles Fort:

As I replied to Dute regarding us being someone's property, let me know what you think:

While this idea is interesting (not to mention horrifying), I have to say this is just jumping the gun in the absence of any evidence. There is no way we will ever discern the true motivational forces guiding these alleged beings, let alone discern that we are their "property". I think cooler heads need to prevail in studying this subject such that this sort of conjecture remains limited. I can just as easily come to many other conclusions based on the alien abduction narrative. To state we are property is to imply we were created by the aliens essentially, that's a huge logical leap to make, it's dramatic and frightening but baseless with the information we currently have.

I wouldn't see it so much as being their property exactly, rather as being at their mercy utterly as a species. Whatever their intentions. Still even assuming something like "motives" or pronouns are attributable to UFOs is pure speculation.

While this idea is interesting (not to mention horrifying), I have to say this is just jumping the gun in the absence of any evidence. There is no way we will ever discern the true motivational forces guiding these alleged beings, let alone discern that we are their "property". I think cooler heads need to prevail in studying this subject such that this sort of conjecture remains limited. I can just as easily come to many other conclusions based on the alien abduction narrative. To state we are property is to imply we were created by the aliens essentially, that's a huge logical leap to make, it's dramatic and frightening but baseless with the information we currently have.

While this idea is interesting (not to mention horrifying), I have to say this is just jumping the gun in the absence of any evidence.

You missed my point. I was saying that if I accepted the sort of so-called "abduction reports" that David Jacobs describes as "true", then I would be inclined to agree with Charles Fort. That is, Fort's property conclusion would be a starting, working hypothesis given such "facts" -- if in reality I did accept them as facts that needed to be explained.

1) Where do you guys stand on Alien Abductions? Where do you draw the line?

I lean heavily towards them being exactly what they seem to be: unknown sentient beings repeatedly performing medical procedures upon certain human individuals and their family members. The core of it is said to involve DNA extraction and use. Why remains unclear.

On the surface I think that abductions are easy for many to dismiss because there is no solid evidence, but the further you look into it the more interesting the subject gets. I have read books by Mack, Jacobs, Hopkins, C.D.B. Bryan and many others, and I think that when you strip away the embellishment and fantasy elements and look at the startling similarities in some cases, there is a very distinct trend in most of these experiences.

Mack was instrumental in showing that most experiencers are not actually fantasy-prone individuals at all, and that many actually had PTSD and were having their lives torn apart from the stress. Losing jobs, relationships, custody of their children - not exactly something anyone would knowingly endure just to perpetuate a fantasy.

According to these researchers this seems to be happening to a wide cross-section of individuals worldwide, and often with people with very little experience or exposure to the pop culture versions of the phenomenon. Very rarely did any of these subjects care about UFOs or ETs as a subject, and they were almost all pretty much scared shitless and hoping to be told that they were crazy so they wouldn't have to accept that it might really be happening.

I draw the line at the people who veer off into stories where they are taken on tours of the solar system, or told how important they are, or know where the beings are from (Pleadian nonsense), or where military personnel are described as being present. Call it a bias but that all smells like bullshit to me.

I would also tend to be less convinced by cases that use hypnosis for memory retrieval, but many cases don't actually use it at all, so that doesn't exclude those cases entirely for me. Even if you eliminate those there are still many cases left.

As Tim pointed out, there are elements of this phenomenon that aren't usually discussed outside of research circles to avoid pop culture pretenders; I tend to believe the cases where the same beings, procedures and even the instruments used are very similar. Sadly, I tend to believe the people who are scared shitless rather than spiritual, glowey and mainly interested in selling books.

It should be noted that (as Mack discovered) when people make up stories about this stuff they usually tend to put themselves right in the middle of everything; as a special human who is told secrets and taken for tours and has questions answered. But when Joe Bloe the welder from Akron comes in for therapy and describes repeated textbook abduction experiences, and has PTSD and panic attacks and basically just wants to be told he's crazy because 'UFOs are fer kooks!'... you have to wonder how people can dismiss these experiences outright.

2) How do you rationalize and/or dismiss the stories of the more credible abductees?

I don't. There is no need to rationalize, or to come to any premature conclusions at all, IMO. There is just not enough information to either believe it or dismiss it. I would instead encourage those who are ready to do so to be sure to study the subject fully prior to any such conclusions. Read the books by Mack, Jacobs and Hopkins at very least.

I also think it is vitally important to understand WHY people embellish, make things up, or otherwise hoax people into believing things that aren't true. There are distinct personality types that pull that crap, and most abductees aren't such people. Witness testimony isn't entirely valueless and worthy of complete dismissal unless you have zero understanding of human nature. It may not stand up to scientific standards, but it still has value IMO. The scientific evidence will hopefully come later.

3) If we were to assume the Abductees are accurate and truthful, what are the implications of that in your eyes?

It's difficult to say. You can only try to assemble some of the puzzle pieces as told by experiencers. There seems to be DNA extraction taking place via eggs and sperm. There seems to be a trend of monitoring family lines; a long-term project involving multiple generations of the same family. The idea of creating hybrids is usually presented, and the presence of an abductee's "offspring" are sometimes described. That may or may not involve deception. Reproduction is usually the central theme.

Violence is almost never described, but also consent is never asked for. Pain is sometimes described as a part of the procedures. Telepathy is almost universally described, as well as certain hints/suggestions that humans are destroying the earth, must stop nuclear detonations, etcetera.

To take speculation Saturday to it's extreme, there are some who believe that maybe they have been doing this from the beginning, that humans are actually related to them. That they are partially us.

I don't see society as ever accepting that this phenomenon is real, so if it does lead to something I seriously doubt that we will even see it coming. If they were going to invade us or otherwise hurt us it likely would have happened long ago. I personally suspect that the reality of this phenomenon is partially why disclosure hasn't happened yet, and probably never will. It's too much for humanity to take in our fragile homicidal state.

Oryx, why is it that the phenomenon is primarily reported in the states and not elsewhere? Are we to assume these beings are focusing on America? Isn't a more prosaic explanation that it is due to a cultural influence?

According to the research of Dr. Mack, David Jacobs and others it isn't focused upon any specific geographic region more than any other. Investigations have primarily been based in the US and Europe so subjects are more likely to be studied here.

Mack found some cases in remote areas without any 'pop culture' influences and they still described the same essential details regarding the beings witnessed and procedures done.

It's interesting to note that the pop culture influences were originally inspired by early reported abduction cases, not the other way around; movies like Close Encounters and shows like the X-Files were directly influenced by Betty and Barney Hill and Travis Walton and other famous cases. The X-Files in particular drew heavily upon details from reported cases, while adding in certain malevolent aspects that weren't reported by abductees.

There is also apparently no specific correlation with any specific race or social status, or with those who exhibited previous episodes of mental illness or instability.

Researchers have also said that there are certain details in many abductions that have intentionally been withheld from the public so that they can better discern who is embellishing or lying.

'Abduction' deals with the studies, so I'd go for that. It's fascinating even if you don't believe in the phenomenon as real. There are also some interesting videos and interviews with him on youtube.

David Jacobs has studied many cases, too. He's convinced that this is some sort of invasion scenario because the ETs (apparently) use 'screen memories' to make abductees forget their experiences. "Manipulation without consent", etcetera. Mack veered more towards some of the spiritual implications of it all in his later years.

I really, really appreciate your posts. You've read all the stuff I don't take the time to read, with pretty much a filter I agree with. Thank you for passing it on :)

I love r/UAP and its insistence on evidence, but as I see it, the UFO/UAP field is still too young for a purely scientific approach. We are still in the progress of finding out what elements of the phenomena it makes sense to be scientific about, and how.

Thanks for the kind words. I reserve the right to be completely wrong of course. ; )

I see this subject as a massive puzzle, and one with just as many puzzle pieces in the box that don't fit the puzzle as ones that do fit it due to all of the B.S. that gets mixed in.

I never fault anyone for refusing to believe this stuff without evidence, and I think that it does exist, but will be very elusive to find. The circumstantial witness testimony can be a window to what that evidence might be, even if we can't use it as ultimate proof.

I don't trust most abduction accounts because they're usually recounted through hypnosis. Hypnosis is used by psychotherapists to change thoughts and behaviors through hypnotic suggestion, not to recover memories. Do you see how that can be a problem when trying to recover accurate information?

Keep in mind that memories are transient; every time you access a memory, it changes to integrate new information. Now think about how vulnerable your memories are to manipulation when you're in a state of high suggestibility. Would you trust a testimony brought forth through "memories" recalled this way? I wouldn't.

Yes, it can be a problem and we must be cautious. However it might not be as big a problem as you think.

The psychologist who regressed Betty and Barney Hill tried repeatedly to get them to realize or admit they were just basically fantasizing about the whole thing or trying to find a more reasonable explanation, but they insisted (under hypnosis) that they were telling a true story.

Jacobs talks about a study where a researcher at San Diego State (if i remember correctly) hypnotized ten or so subjects and through hypnotic suggestion convinced them that they had been abducted by aliens and got them to describe very elaborate abduction experiences. So far, so good. Except the abduction experiences they described were all completely different from each other and from the typical abduction experience as described by most abductees.

Jacobs' books have discussions of the methodological pitfalls of hypnosis and the caution that needs to be used to avoid them. He also considers lots of alternative explanations (sleep paralysis, collective hallucinations, etc etc) and why they don't do a good job of explaining the abduction phenomenon.

That being said, it would be great to see more transcripts or recordings of their interviews on hypnotized subjects so that we could judge for ourselves if they were 'leading the witness' or not. (Or maybe there is more out there and I just haven't looked for it.) At this point we just have to take their word for it that they're doing a good job.

Hypnosis is used by psychotherapists to change thoughts and behaviors through hypnotic suggestion, not to recover memories.

Clinically, I don't think that's a completely accurate description. That may be one use, but the suggestive state of hypnosis is used for other ends as well. Here's the abstract for a classic review of hypnosis (unrelated to the abduction reports):

A summary of the work on the topic named completed under the author's direction at Yale University, together with an historical background and comments on the superiority of the scientific to the anecdotal method of investigation. Six previous hypotheses are shown by experimental methods not to present genuine problems in the sense in which they were proposed, and are in consequence called "pseudo-difficulties." It is then indicated that (1) hypnosis is a state of relatively heightened susceptibility to prestige suggestion, (2) this susceptibility alone is not hypnosis, (3) the susceptibility is at least a habit phenomenon, (4) it can be differentiated from volition and from commands, (5) ideomotor action and monoideism may also be conceived as habit phenomena, (6) there may be suggestive control (waking as well as in the trance) over some non-voluntary phenomena, and (7) hypnotic hallucinations may also be conceived as habit phenomena. There are references at the ends of chapters.

But then again I agree that human memory, in isolation, is not solid evidence for "facts" about the external world. And timmy242 could answer this better, but my understanding is that the "serious" abduction researchers claim there is corroborating evidence beyond basic recall. Either way human memory is a starting point for an empirical investigation, and even with all of its faults can be used to guide productive research. Think about it: if human memory were entirely unreliable, science would not be possible in the first place!

My belief is similar to your own. I dismiss the adbuction phenomenon and most close encounters in general. Personally, I believe 100% that we are not alone in the universe and that the likelihood of an intelligent race with the technology to travel across vast distances is a very distinct possibility. Whether or not they have visited us, for me, is debatable. I feel the outlandish accounts of abductions and close encounters greatly discredit any serious discussions on the topics of UAP/UFOs.

The distances are not as disheartening vast as one might be lead to believe.

The nearest star is just over 4 lightyears away; with an engine able to produce a march-acceleration of 1G it would take about 4 years (observed from the spaceship, 6 from earth) to travel that distance with no shenanigans - just pure acceleration and de-acceleration.

Add to that some good ideas we haven't come up with and a slightly more advanced understanding of physics than what we have now, and space might not be quite the barrier we hope it is.

1) On alien abduction I really would have to see the session in order to make sure that the questions and answers weren't leading. It would really depend on what I heard.
2) I don't rationalize or dismiss the stories of abductees. I tend to believe that they have been through something traumatic and that empathy should be shown to them regardless.
3) I would consider the implications of abductions to be to put humans in the place of all of the animals we study. If we are special, then the aliens that are abducting us are certainly doing a bang up job of making us feel like animals, if we are something of a common occurrence in the universe, then we need to try to communicate our importance to them.

http://www.alliesofhumanity.org read book 1 if you haven't, it provides the essential perspective to consider and be with, over time, these important and taboo'ed questions of modern human reality.

and go with your inner knowing and inner inclinations and deeper experience on this topic. There is the mind that thinks, and there is the mind of Knowledge that knows. go with your inner knowing here, it has made all the difference in researching and coming to see the phenomenon objectively, beyond personal preference, speculation and earth-centered assumption.